If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

First read Vim_users full post, and then answer again, especially tell us where you read that BSDs don't support suspend/Hibernate/... Because that is where where gnome currently depends hard on systemd. And that's what Gnome developers sell as being not an important feature...

Again, wrong. Neither of you have apparently looked up why. upower interfaces have changed and OpenBSD doesn't support the newer interfaces. GNOME relies on upower for power management but it is an freedesktop component and not a GNOME module. Complaining about upower changes to GNOME project is pointless.

Comment

Again, wrong. Neither of you have apparently looked up why. upower interfaces have changed and OpenBSD doesn't support the newer interfaces. GNOME relies on upower for power management but it is an freedesktop component and not a GNOME module. Complaining about upower changes to GNOME project is pointless.

Grrr! upower has nothing to do with suspending your computer! At least in gnome... It's done in gnome-settings-daemon's power-plugin. But it seems as if they changed direct systemd-calls to dbus-calls for logind. But it might be I am too lazy and those calls still exist. Last time I checked there WERE direct calls to systemd (not proxied by dbus) for suspend/Hibernate.

Comment

Grrr! upower has nothing to do with suspending your computer! At least in gnome... It's done in gnome-settings-daemon's power-plugin. But it seems as if they changed direct systemd-calls to dbus-calls for logind. But it might be I am too lazy and those calls still exist. Last time I checked there WERE direct calls to systemd (not proxied by dbus) for suspend/Hibernate.

I don't buy that. Maybe you should stop being lazy and look it up. upower uses logind in the newer versions. If you are porting, you are supposed to change the underlying implementation to match whatever your OS exposes for the same functionality if it exists.

Comment

Grrr! upower has nothing to do with suspending your computer! At least in gnome... It's done in gnome-settings-daemon's power-plugin. But it seems as if they changed direct systemd-calls to dbus-calls for logind. But it might be I am too lazy and those calls still exist. Last time I checked there WERE direct calls to systemd (not proxied by dbus) for suspend/Hibernate.

Since you are being lazy, let me show you a reference to backup my claim

Where does that post mention upower? It also does not say that PM at that moment is decoupled from systemd, but if more work is done it is possible. Probably it was done in the meantime, because I know that I read in the sources (and that is the only thing that counts) direct calls to systemd suspend function (direct, not proxied by login1 dbus interface).https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-s...manager.c#n889
This function (action_suspend) AFAIR directly called systemd the last time I checked. It also does not use upower but logind. I started to browse the history, and that is where I got lazy, as there are many commits...

While some people are really opened about keeping fallback code for ConsoleKit or portability
patches, some don't care at all or are even getting in our way on purpose.

Emphasis by me. I don't see any reason for him to lie about that.

Just that Linux as a kernel provides more functionality and features that GNOME integrates with and if other operating systems lack those features, it is not the job of desktop environment developers to fix it.

I never said they should fix it. But if they use features that aren't available on other platforms they hardly can claim to have portability as declared aim.

If your suggestion is that GNOME should target only the lowest common base functionality and nothing else in the name of portability and avoid innovating and taking advantage of the things Linux is good at just because OpenBSD doesn't have resources to catch up on evolving interfaces, I strongly disagree with that notion.

That is not at all what I said. Of course they can and should use any Linux features they want to use. But they should have the balls to say: "Look, we make use of these features that are not available for other platforms and actually we don't care. We are Linux only, we don't care about portability!".

I never said they should fix it. But if they use features that aren't available on other platforms they hardly can claim to have portability as declared aim.
That is not at all what I said. Of course they can and should use any Linux features they want to use. But they should have the balls to say: "Look, we make use of these features that are not available for other platforms and actually we don't care. We are Linux only, we don't care about portability!".

I wouldn't say he is lying but I would say it is a political claim based on OS rivalry. I would say GNOME uses features in Linux because most GNOME developers use Linux as a platform. They do use interfaces whenever possible as opposed to relying on specific implementations directly. Those shows concern for portability. Nothing further can be done other than to avoid innovating or integrating at all. It seems like you want GNOME to claim that they don't care because you don't agree with their approach. That is unlikely to happen as you are not a contributor.

Comment

upower was just an example. You are missing the point by getting hung up on it. These are dozens of features that GNOME integrates with and OS specific maintainers haven't ported in their platform. Most GNOME developers work for Linux vendors or are volunteers personally using Linux. What happens is a natural result of this. Non Linux ports are very much a niche on the desktop even compared to Linux which itself doesn't have a major market share.

Comment

I would say GNOME uses features in Linux because most GNOME developers use Linux as a platform. They do use interfaces whenever possible as opposed to relying on specific implementations directly. Those shows concern for portability. Nothing further can be done other than to avoid innovating or integrating at all. It seems like you want GNOME to claim that they don't care because you don't agree with their approach. That is unlikely to happen as you are not a contributor.

When they are using interfaces that are simply not available on other platform they do not have portability in mind. Portability means to make sure that a software is fully supported on different platforms. It does not mean to simply say "Here, we are using these interfaces, if you want our software on your OS you have to rebuild them 1:1!". That is exactly what they are doing. Also, it doesn't matter if I am a contributor or not, obviously false statements (Gnome aims for portability) will not suddenly become true just because I contribute or not.

Comment

When they are using interfaces that are simply not available on other platform they do not have portability in mind. Portability means to make sure that a software is fully supported on different platforms.

Have you ever done any portability work? I suspect not. It is not the job of GNOME to make sure that everything is supported everywhere. It has never worked that way and never will. It is purely a best effort thing. GNOME can provide interfaces and document them clearly (including stable vs unstable features) and that is the extend of its portability efforts. It is the job of other operating system developers to provide the implementation or port the existing one to their platform.